AIM-54 Phoenix missile

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 06:55:19 -0600, John Carrier wrote:
Also add altitude and vector of the target. Shooting down is as much
an advantage as ownship speed.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Not as much as you'd think. Increased air density shrinks missile
envelopes.

But the increased air density also reduces the speed of the
target; wouldn't these effects roughly cancel out?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

Not as much as you'd think. Increased air density shrinks missile
envelopes.

But the increased air density also reduces the speed of the
target; wouldn't these effects roughly cancel out?

Not as much as you'd think.

It depends upon the target speed and its aspect, doesn't it? A low altitude
stream raid (multiple sea skimmers, perhaps submarine launched) head on at
..9IMN required careful management of the launch parameters (first shot
relatively high, subsequent shots lower), the radar scan volume, and
(eventually) removal of radar support for the first shot(s) to insure
successful engagement of all the targets.

Low altitude severely limits range. Sidewinder envelopes can get below 1/2
mile with a fast, opening target at low altitude. Rear quarter shots are
limited by motor burn time (in this regard, AMRAAM is pretty nice, assuming
it doesn't have any speed gate issues ala Sparrow ... wouldn't know, never
carried one). The target is effected by speed limitations (An F-14 can
easily do 1.8 ... around 1200 KTAS ... at higher altitudes, 800KIAS low),
but its engines sustain the speed.

R / John

Tony Volk wrote:
Jeff, I think you've missed the point of a lot of my post (or I didn't
make it clear enough).

With respect, I think you missed mine... while you're
maneuvering aggressively against Ed's section, mine
can ruin your day.

There is no way for you to be sure that the guy you're
fighting is the only one around.



Jeff

Alan Minyard wrote:
In addition, I have never heard of a Harrier jock
sitting still and rotating while shooting heaters.

Understanding that you are exaggerating on purpose,
it's worth keeping in mind that a 'winder needs
SOME relative wind to maintain attitude off the rail.
While this may be less true of thrust-vectoring missiles,
it's still worth keeping in mind.


Jeff

Tony Volk wrote:
Oh COME ON. Conserve missiles for later flights? I don't think so!
I'd LOVE to hear a general tell their soldiers not to make less than 100%
shots on the enemy so that the missiles can be saved for later pilots! As
for the plane in question, it has at least one more IR missile, perhaps 3
more. Given the positional advantage gained by the enemy having to avoid
your first shot, you can now take your time with the second shot.

Well, to apply Ed's dictum that air superiority is something you do
on the way to the target (apologies to Ed if I've mangled that), I'd be
worrying about conserving missiles for later in the ***flight*** rather
than ****ing them away in low-Pk shots. I'm gonna be a sad puppy
if I'm Winchester on the way home and the bad guy's still there (or
there's more of 'em than I expected).

But if we're fighting a high-intensity war at the end of a long logistical
tail,
it's not such an outlandish thought to worry about where the next ride's
ordnance is coming from.

On top of all that, it's one thing to go play with wall-to-wall missiles for
a MIGSWEEP, quite another to self-escort with 2 heaters and
2 Slammers or some such, along with your real payload. Which is the
real reason you actually manned up today? The bombs or the air-to-air
stuff?


Jeff

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:47:24 -0700, Jeff Crowell wrote:

Which is the real reason you actually manned up today?

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the
lamentations of their women!

-Jeff B. (with thanks to both Conan and Gengis Khan)
yeff at erols dot com

There is no way for you to be sure that the guy you're
fighting is the only one around.

Again, arguments regarding the scope of my comments and my assumptions
are to be found in previous emails. You're asking me questions about
assumptions and/or conclusions that I believe I've already addressed. I
think I have explained my position as well as I possibly can without writing
an entire essay on the matter. If you disagree with my assumptions and/or
conclusions, so be it. Either way, this'll be my last post on this thread.
Regards,

Tony

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Tony Volk
blurted out:

Again, arguments regarding the scope of my comments and my assumptions
are to be found in previous emails. You're asking me questions about
assumptions and/or conclusions that I believe I've already addressed.

Well I read all of your posts here, and you kinda glossed over the big
picture. You assume that AWACS will give you total SA, or enough to
know if you're going to be fighting 2 v 2 v X. I suggested you're now
a low time DPRK MiG-29 driver (no AWACS for you...) would you still
bet everything on getting slow?

And you said your wingman is going to be given free authority to
engage (which indeed happens at times and all you have is radio mutual
support). Not always a great plan if your wingie is the FNG.

I think I have explained my position as well as I possibly can without writing
an entire essay on the matter.

Sure, you made some assumptions about maintaining a high level of SA
as you square the corner to take a missile shot. But when Bob Lodge &
Roger Locher were closing in on MiG #4 (10 May 1972) they didn't hear
their wingman (Markle/Eaves) yelling about the MiG-19 lobbing cannon
shells at Lodge/Locher. Guess it didn't help that Locher was video
taping the attack on their 4th MiG (that they never got).

If you disagree with my assumptions and/or conclusions, so be it.

Fair enough...you presented ONE gameplan. It might work against an
inferior opponent, where you have absolute SA (there's only two of
them left). My point? There is no ONE single solution, but your
gameplan is fraught with more peril that it requires...IMO.

Juvat

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:38:28 -0600, "John Carrier"
wrote:

Not as much as you'd think. Increased air density shrinks missile
envelopes.

But the increased air density also reduces the speed of the
target; wouldn't these effects roughly cancel out?

Not as much as you'd think.

It depends upon the target speed and its aspect, doesn't it? A low altitude
stream raid (multiple sea skimmers, perhaps submarine launched) head on at
.9IMN required careful management of the launch parameters (first shot
relatively high, subsequent shots lower), the radar scan volume, and
(eventually) removal of radar support for the first shot(s) to insure
successful engagement of all the targets.

Low altitude severely limits range. Sidewinder envelopes can get below 1/2
mile with a fast, opening target at low altitude. Rear quarter shots are
limited by motor burn time (in this regard, AMRAAM is pretty nice, assuming
it doesn't have any speed gate issues ala Sparrow ... wouldn't know, never
carried one). The target is effected by speed limitations (An F-14 can
easily do 1.8 ... around 1200 KTAS ... at higher altitudes, 800KIAS low),
but its engines sustain the speed.

R / John



Kinda gives you an appreciation of the AIM-47. A long ranged missile
fired at Mach 3+ and 80,000ft+ I still think that the YF-12 was one
of the best "might have beens".

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:38:28 -0600, John Carrier wrote:
Not as much as you'd think. Increased air density shrinks missile
envelopes.

But the increased air density also reduces the speed of the
target; wouldn't these effects roughly cancel out?

Not as much as you'd think.

It depends upon the target speed and its aspect, doesn't it? A low altitude
stream raid (multiple sea skimmers, perhaps submarine launched) head on at
.9IMN

What's this?


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).